DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 409 628 EA 028 483

AUTHOR Larsen, Marci L.; Malen, BettyTITLE The Elementary School Principal's Influence on Teachers'

Curricular and Instructional Decisions.PUB DATE Mar 97NOTE 37p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, March 24-28,1997) .

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Administrator Role; Decision Making; Elementary Education;

*Instructional Leadership; Interprofessional Relationship;Leadership Qualities; *Principals; *Teacher AdministratorRelationship; *Teacher Influence

ABSTRACTWithin the research on teacher planning and decision making

the principal is seldom mentioned as a key shaper of teachers' curricular andinstructional decision making. This paper presents findings of a case studyof two elementary school principals. The study examined the congruencebetween principals' aims and teachers' decisions; the statements regardingwho or what influenced teachers' actions; and the principals' efforts toinfluence teachers' decisions. The theoretical framework was based on Blase'spolitical perspective (1991) and Mazzoni's power-influence framework (1992).Data were obtained through questionnaires, documents, and interviews with 10teachers and 2 principals in the two elementary schools. The findings showthat one principal had a direct, visible influence on teachers' decisions andthat the other principal showed considerably less direct influence. Teachers'curricular and instructional decisions were contingent upon a web of fiveinterrelated factors: (1) the clarity of the principal's goals and his or hercapacity to communicate and connect them to action; (2) the principal'sawareness of resources; (3) the principal's motivation to deploy resources;(4) the principal's skill at employing and combining strategies; and (5) asetting conducive to principal influence. Principal influence is thus aconditional, reciprocal phenomenon. Finally, the political perspective andthe power-influence framework are essentially valid and valuable tools forexploring principal-teacher interactions. (Contains 30 references). (LMI)

********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *

********************************************************************************

00rIr)crOd.

The Elementary School Principal's Influence

on

Teachers' Curricular and Instructional Decisions

BY

Marci L. LarsenSouth Kitsap School District

Port Orchard, Washington

and

Betty MalenUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONoftsofEducadomiResearchamimmvemem

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

o Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

A paper prepared for the American Educational Research AssociationConvention in Chicago, Illinois, March 27, 1997.

2

BES COPY AMIABLE

2

INTRODUCTION

The literature on the principal as an instructional leader

implies that the principal should, and could, influence teachers'

curricular and instructional decision making. Yet, within the

research on teacher planning and decision making the principal is

seldom, if ever, mentioned as a key factor shaping teachers'

curricular and instructional decisions. This apparent paradox in

the literature provided the impetus for a study that sought to

uncover how, if at all, elementary principals might influence

teachers' curricular and instructional decisions (Larsen, 1995).

Such a study was undertaken to help "unpack" this apparent paradox

as well as address other related gaps in the literature on the

principal's ability to influence this important aspect of

schooling.

For example, the effective schools based literature on the

principal as an instructional leader often admonishes principals

to exercise influence but provides little information on the

processes through which influence might be exerted (Bossert,

Dwyer, Rowan & Lee, 1982). Other strands of literature also tend

to neglect the "how" of instructional leadership (Achilles, 1987;

Deal, 1987; Greenfield, 1987). Although more recent studies

rooted in notions of micropolitics identify strategies principals

employ to exert influence on teachers (Blase & Kirby, 1992;

Kleine-Kracht, 1993), these studies are limited in number and

scope. To help reconcile the contrasting views regarding whether

principals influence teachers' curricular and instructional

3

3

decisions as well as explore how they might do so, case studies

that focused on the dynamic interactions of principals and

teachers in the domain of curriculum and instruction were

conducted.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the case study

findings. Since a detailed treatment of the research design and

the individual cases is available elsewhere (Larsen, 1995), this

paper offers a brief overview of the research, summarizes key

findings, and highlights their implications for future research.

OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

This research relied on a qualitative, multiple-case study

design to explore how, if at all, two elementary principals

influenced teachers' curricular and instructional decisions. The

conceptual framework which guided the exploratory case studies

viewed principal-teacher interactions around curriculum and

instruction as fundamentally political in nature (Blase, 1991;

Hoyle, 1982; Larsen, 1995). Given that orientation, Blase's broad

notion of micropolitics as a power-based interaction and his

characterization of principal-teacher dynamics as inherently

political were merged with Mazzoni's more explicitly defined

framework for examining power-influence relationships. This

framework directed attention to: 1) goals of principals and

teachers; 2) resources principals can use to exert influence; 3)

motivations of principals to deploy resources; 4) strategies

principals utilize in an attempt to influence teachers' decisions;

5) perceptions of the impact of the strategies employed; 6)

4

4

reasons why some strategies are influential and others are not;

and 7) insights regarding the manner in which features of the

setting may condition the flow of influence. Attention to these

matters provided a basis for eliciting the detailed accounts of

principal-teacher interactions needed to gauge whether principals

are exercising significant influence and to tease out factors that

may account for principal influence or lack of influence on

teachers' curricular and instructional decisions.

This political perspective was used because there is growing

evidence that principal-teacher interactions in the volatile area

of curriculum and instruction are fundamentally political in

nature (Larsen, 1995). This framework was also selected because

it directs attention to what actors within a system actually do

and how they do it, yet keeps an eye on the manner in which the

setting conditions their opportunities to influence interactions

(Kanter, 1972). In short, the framework "fit" the phenomenon of

interest.

But even with a sensible analytic framework, gauging and

interpreting influence is not a simple, straightforward task. The

key concepts of power and influence are complex and contested

terms (Dahl, 1984; Pfeffer, 1980). Moreover, the multiple forms

and means of influence make it hard to calculate precise degrees

of influence (Larsen, 1995). Recognizing these difficulties, the

framework employed here embodies multiple but general criteria for

gauging influence. Those criteria include: a) the correspondence

between actor goals and decision outcomes; b) the patterns of

5

attributions (who is viewed as influential); and c) the analysis

of influence efforts drawn from detailed descriptions of the

resources and strategies employed. These analyses serve as a

check to see whether attributions are warranted and whether

outcomes are the plausible result of the actors' efforts to

exercise influence (Gamson, 1968; Geary, 1989). Following these

general guidelines principal influence was gauged by examining:

a) the congruence between principal aims and teachers' decisions;

b) the statements regarding who or what is influencing teachers'

decisions; and c) the principal's efforts to influence teachers'

decisions in the domain of interest. The factors that may account

for the patterns of influence were derived from a systematic

analysis of each case and a comparative analysis of the two cases.

Two elementary school sites were targeted based on the

principal's reputation as a strong, instructional leader. Data

sources included questionnaires, documents, semi-structured

interviews with ten teachers and two principals, augmented by

follow-up telephone calls to informants to correct or corroborate

emergent themes. Analyses of the individual cases were conducted

according to the designated categories of the conceptual framework

that guided the research: actors, goals, resources, motivations,

strategies for influence, setting features that condition the

opportunities for influence. Individual case narratives were

developed, then a cross-case analysis was completed. Throughout

data collection and analysis, a variety of recognized "checks" for

bias and error were incorporated. Those included providing

6

6

anonymity and confidentiality to informants, continuous

interrogation of data, efforts to corroborate and triangulate data

from multiple sources, efforts to subject analysis to collegial

review, and explicit articulation of "chains" of evidence (i.e.,

the links between evidence considered and inferences drawn) (Yin,

1984).

KEY FINDINGS

Although the research set out to examine two sites where

principal influence was reputedly present and demonstrable, the

in-depth case study data demonstrate that at one site the

principal clearly influenced teachers' decisions, and at the

second site the principal was considerably less influential (i.e.,

subtle and indirect). Indeed, the influence pattern may have been

reversed. At the second site it appeared that the teachers were

exerting substantial influence on the principal's decisions. This

unexpected discovery meant the analytic task was different than

anticipated, yet still important. Rather than offering a

cumulative, case analysis, the study yielded a cross-case,

comparative analysis of the data that allows one to look for the

presence of forces where there is high influence and the absence

of forces where there is less obvious, or more subtle, influence.

When the two cases were juxtaposed it was clear that both

principals had.a reservoir of resources that could be used to

influence. Indeed they had highly comparable if not equivalent

resource bases. For example, both possessed expertise,

credibility, position, and funding. Thus the potential for

7

7

influence was clearly present in both instances but evidence of

influence was considerably more substantial in one case. These

contrasting cases suggest that given a comparable reservoir of

resources principal influence is shaped by other factors. Five

sets of interrelated factors may be particularly helpful in

accounting for the high-influence and low-influence patterns that

were unexpectedly uncovered. The five factors are: 1) goals; 2)

resources; 3) motivation; 4) skill; and 5) setting. Their

presence in Case One and absence in Case Two suggest that they may

be important "explanatory" forces.

Goals: Clarity, Communication, and Connection to Action

To exert noticeable, detectable influence, the assumptions of

the framework applied to this study suggest that goals are

important because they help actors focus their resources in

pursuit of aims, rather than dilute resources across a range of

intents. While goals may be general and elusive, they can also be

more focused. They can provide fairly definitive targets to gauge

progress, and accomplishment, as well as to guide the use of

resources. In addition, where goals affect others, they must be

conveyed to and understood by others. Although both principals

had goals, and created a climate of support for teachers' goals, a

major contrast between the two cases was on the clarity of the two

principals' goals.

In Case One, the principal's stated goals regarding

curriculum and instruction included: 1) offering a recess

alternative to students; 2) modifying the school calendar; 3)

8

8

becoming a "pilot" school in order to implement a new math

curriculum school-wide; and 4) implementing a new reading

curriculum school-wide. The principal augmented her broad aims

with more focused aims. She then articulated those and used them

to guide her decisions; she deployed resources strategically to

advance those aims.

For example, when pursuing participation in the math pilot,

she presented school-wide math test scores to the faculty to

demonstrate low student achievement in math. Thus, she convinced

the faculty that the math curriculum they were currently using was

not working and a change was necessary. Then, she wrote a grant

to compete for one of the two math pilot spots available for the

district. This resulted in additional resources being allocated

to the building to pursue a math pilot. As one teacher described

the process:

I think the district started looking at different mathprograms and then [the principal] needed to convince thestaff that we should be a pilot school and apply to beone of the two pilot schools that they choose and shewas able to.

In another instance, when interviewing for teaching positions

at the building, the principal clearly articulated her goals to

potential employees. In this way, she could hire teachers who

either already had similar goals or who were willing to support

her goals. Having goals and clearly articulating them allowed the

principal to create a more homogeneous faculty and, in turn, move

the faculty along in a common direction.

9

Another example was related to how the principal pursued a

change in the calendar. She clearly articulated the details of

the proposed calendar change in a written document which was

shared with the school board, district officials, staff, and

parents. The plan was also shared verbally at board meetings and

community meetings. The principal's skill in written and verbal

communications was an advantage in articulating her goal to

multiple constituency groups.

Goals guided this principal's actions and decisions about how

to deploy and combine resources to shape what was going on in the

school. There was some resistance among the faculty and parents

to the philosophy presented in the math pilot, as well as in other

goal areas, however, in spite of resistance, the principal

continued to pursue her aims. As summarized by one teacher

informant, "[The principal] is really clever and I think she gets

her way pretty much."

In Case Two, the principal's stated goals regarding

curriculum and instruction included: 1) assisting teachers with

the implementation of district adopted curriculum; 2) making

teachers aware of available curricular and instructional materials

and methods; 3) enhancing collaboration among teachers; and 4)

engendering cooperative learning in classrooms. The principal

created a climate of support for teacher aims and initiatives as

well, but had her own agenda and priorities. However, this

principal _was more elusive in her aims and reactive in her

responses. She offered general support for anything going on,

110

10

which reflected what she claimed were her top priorities-

assisting staff with the implementation of district adopted

curriculum and making teachers aware of available curricular and

instructional materials and methods.

For example, in describing her role in the implementation of

a new, district-wide science curriculum, the principal said she

was focusing on complying with district regulations and assisting

teachers with implementation. In talking about supporting

district initiatives, she said, "One of [my] biggest roles is as

things are developed through the district, being responsible for

bringing that back to the staff and working with implementation

and helping them with timelines." Setting up times for teacher

representatives from district committees, seeking representatives

for district committees, and ordering materials were other

examples demonstrating the principal's general goals. There was

no evidence that she was promoting her two, more specific aims-

cooperative learning and collaboration--although there was some

evidence that these practices were occurring in some classrooms

and among some grade level teams. Beyond supporting these general

aims, the principal believed the teachers should make their own

curricular and instructional decisions.

So, the major distinction here was not the number of aims,

or, their specificity when initially identified, but the degree to

which multiple, initially generally cast aims could be

articulated, then translated into action, or used as a guide for a

plan of action. In Case One, the principal had a more focused,

1

11

active agenda while the principal in Case Two had a general,

reactive posture of "being supportive." Whether shared fully or

partially or not at all by teachers, one principal had focused as

well as general goals which gave direction to her actions and gave

a yardstick marker to gauge progress and influence. It may be

that the principal in Case Two was "caught" at a time of inaction

and, hence, the study gave a distorted view, or that the

researcher got trapped by difficulties of gauging influence.

However, it does seem that one factor that distinguishes the two

cases is the clarity of, and the focus on, goals. This contrast

between the two cases suggests that clarity of goals,

communication of goals in an active versus a reactive fashion, and

connection of goals to the deployment of resources may be

important factors for principals who desire to influence teachers'

decisions.

Resources: Awareness of Assets

Along with goals, the assumptions of the framework draw

attention to the need for resources that are relevant to an issue

and arena of influence as a requisite for, albeit not a

"guarantee" of, influence. Resources may be contacts, credits,

assets, or capabilities. They may be related to the position of

the actor or to personal characteristics, and may be tangible or

intangible. Although resources are not actual influence, without

resources, according to the framework, there is little or no

potential to influence.

12

The bank of resources possessed by the principals in the two

cases was strikingly similar; however, principal awareness of

resources in their possession was strikingly dissimilar. Both

principals possessed a variety of both positional and personal

resources, and this appraisal was corroborated by both principals

and teachers in both cases. The distinction between the two

principals was their awareness of resources in their possession.

In Case One, the principal was quite aware of multiple

resources in her possession, as was apparent in principal

interviews. She "ticked" them off, identifying them readily and

repeatedly. This awareness of resources was corroborated by some

teachers and supporting documents. As reported by one teacher,

"[The principal] looks professional, and, always attends classes

and meetings. [She] brings people from the outside to help us

work. [She's) always an advocate." Another informant said,

"[She] pushes herself hard and is dedicated." Furthermore, she

was actively seeking additional resources to add to her arsenal,

most notably through writing grants, but also through reading,

professional development, and pursuing contacts outside the

school.

In Case Two, the principal initially identified only two

resources available to her: department head positions and time

(both of which could be potentially powerful resources, albeit

indirect). Through further questioning on other matters, she

described additional resources at her disposal, i.e., position,

.expertise, credibility, contacts, and funding. These descriptions

13

13

of principal resources were corroborated by teacher informants who

noted that the principal had these resources available. For

example, on the issue of time, one informant stated, "In the seven

years I've been here, I've seen more [planning] time than ever

before." Rather than directly identifying resources available for

use, the principal tended to credit others with possessing

valuable resources. For example, she spoke highly of a teacher

who was conducting a class on whole language:

a real good example is that we have a second gradeteacher who is doing a class this week on wholelanguage. She is just always on the cutting edge andshe's just a wealth of information. When I came herefive years ago, she had only been here, I think, a year.And, that [whole language] was relatively new, so therewas some skepticism about it. But, she has just done areally good job in making people feel comfortable and isnow a real resource to them as well as to other gradelevels--first through sixth.

Furthermore, she pointed out what excellent resources teachers

generally were to one another.

As noted, resources available to the principals were fairly

comparable but the awareness of what resources they possessed was

not. In Case One, the principal credited herself for possessing

numerous resources, as did the teacher informants. The principal

in Case Two was more inclined to acknowledge resources possessed

by others. This pattern suggests that beyond availability of

resources, be they lodged in position or person, the awareness of

those resources as the basis of influence may be a key determinant

of principal influence. One must be in possession of relevant

resources that can then be used to exercise influence. Then,

14

14

given the motivation and skill to do so, one has the potential to

advance his or her aims. This similarity between the two cases

suggests that although resources may be required to exert

influence, they, alone, will not determine whether a principal is

capable of exerting influence.

Motivation and Skill: Combinations of Direct and Indirect

Strategies

The assumptions of the framework further suggest that given

clear goals and relevant resources, motivation to deploy resources

and the skills for doing so are important factors if one wishes to

exert influence. Deploying resources in a focused, purposeful,

skillful fashion to further one's aims is seen as necessary to

influence other actors' decisions. There was some similarity in

resources deployed by the principals in both cases. However,

there is a clear contrast in the level of motivation and skill in

deploying resources to further specific aims.

Both principals identified funds, staff development, and

faculty meetings as strategies they commonly used in deploying

resources. The difference was in the level of motivation and

skill in utilizing, combining, and blending strategies to promote

specific aims.

The principal in Case One deployed resources to affect

specific aims and in greater combination than did the principal in

Case Two. For example, as the faculty began implementing the math

pilot, a goal of the principal, the principal made a point of

observing math in classroom. As she noted, "I show up when

15

15

things aren't happening that I want to have happening. I am a

physical presence." This strategy provided pressure as well as

support for teachers in their efforts to implement the new

curriculum.

In reading, another priority, the principal allowed

flexibility in expending money originally set aside for workbooks

which prompted teachers to go beyond a basal approach to reading.

This strategy paved the way for changes in reading. When the

district identified reading as a priority, the principal arranged

for Jr. Great Books and Success in Reading workshops for the

faculty. The principal strategically deployed, and tactically

combined, resources to influence teachers in a proactive fashion.

She focused resources to advance her goals purposely, and

effectively employed strategies to further her goals.

In Case Two, there was little evidence to demonstrate

motivation to deploy resources in pursuit of identified goals.

This may well be because several of the goals were elusive and

inclusive which provided no basis for focusing resources.

Therefore, the principal ended up supporting anything and

everything, which caused resources to be diffused across multiple

goals. As a result, their impact on any specific goal was

diluted. Motivation to deploy resources was more evident in

supporting individual teachers' aims and district initiatives

(both of which were important to the principal). The principal

maintained that the primary strategy she employed to exert

influence was utilizing observation post-conferences:

16

16

Probably the biggest one [strategy] is through follow-upconferences after observations, talking specificallyabout instruction and instructional strategies and thatis often kind of a stepping stone for peopleparticularly if you see a pattern or interest that theyhave . . . formative has really opened up some doors togenerate some ideas instructionally.

But the post conference was not the only strategy. When a

teacher who was especially interested in science had time

available, the principal suggested schools where she could observe

science lessons. Several other teachers were pursuing more

literature to use in their classrooms, and, in support, the

principal directed them to the PTA for funds. There was less

evidence of motivation and action in deploying resources in

support of initiatives of priority to the principal, including

collaboration among staff and cooperative learning--two goals of

the principal.

Here again, although resources between the principals were

comparable, their motivation and skill in deploying them in

pursuit of their own goals were distinct. In Case One, the

principal demonstrated a high level of motivation to deploy

resources in pursuit of her goals. Although she was also

motivated to support teachers' aims, she clearly directed most

resources toward promoting her professional priorities and

persisted despite resistance in several instances. In Case Two,

the principal deployed resources in support of teachers' aims and

district initiatives--which were consistent with her general

goals--but not to promote her two more specific goals. This

17

17

tendency resulted in a set of loosely-jointed activities that

overshadowed, and perhaps overpowered, her efforts to advance

particular aims.

This difference between the cases suggests that perhaps the

motivations and skills of the principals were not comparable. Or,

it is possible that in Case Two the goals of the teachers

corresponded so closely with the principal's aims that one could

not discern whether collaboration and cooperative learning, for

example, were being promoted by the principal. A third

possibility is that there was reciprocal influence operating

whereby the principal was responding to the influence of the

teachers. In any case, this contrast between the cases suggests

that motivation and skill in deploying resources to further one's

own agenda are important influence factors, assuming that agenda

is of primary importance.

Settings: Student Populations and District Practices

Lastly, the framework presumes that the setting conditions

the flow of influence. Given clear goals, an awareness of

potentially powerful resources, the motivation to deploy resources

to attain goals, and the skill with which to do so, the setting

may be a determiner of the degree of influence an actor, like a

principal, can exert on other actors, like teachers. Although

there were similarities across the two cases, there were also some

definite differences.

In both cases, contextual factors were identified as

mediating factors on principal influence. The factors were

18

18

similar, as well. Teachers and principals both identified money,

time, parents, staff, and the district as mediating the degree and

impact of principal influence. Lack of resources, such as money

and time, lessens the opportunity to exert influence on teachers'

decisions. As parent, staff, and district input is taken into

account by the principal, it has the potential to dilute or

diffuse the principal's influence on teachers' decisions. There

were two distinct differences in the two settings, however:

student population and district practices.

Student Population

In Case One, the student population was described as lower-

middle to middle class. This description was corroborated by the

fact that approximately 26% of the students were eligible for free

or reduced lunch. In addition, 10% of the population spoke a

language other than English as their primary language. These

factors and standardized achievement test scores had qualified

this school for additional district monies based on "at- riskness"

of the population. This pattern suggests there may have been

pressure and/or support from parents and district officials to

make changes to improve the school's ranking. Hence, incentives

for principal activism may have been present in this case that

were not present in Case Two.

In Case Two, students were described as middle to upper class

with only three or four students qualifying for free or reduced

lunch. In addition, the population was predominately Caucasian.

Standardized achievement test scores at this school were above

19

19

average. This pattern may suggest that there was ongoing pressure

and support from various constituencies to increase, or at least

maintain, the current status. Or, it may suggest that there was

less pressure and support because constituents were satisfied with

the current situation.

District Practices

A second distinct difference between the two cases was in the

operation of the district. In Case One, although district

personnel determine curricular areas of focus, money was allocated

to the building and decisions regarding curricular adoptions and

scope and sequence were determined by individual building faculty.

This arrangement afforded opportunity for the principal to exert

influence over curricular decisions. This school district

originally offered support for two of twenty-four schools in the

area of math. Although a specific math philosophy was being

promoted by the district, participation was optional and

competitive. Also, resources were provided by the district for

schools to determine their own reading curriculum. No specific

philosophy was required which, again, afforded an opportunity for

the principal to influence the faculty's curricular decisions.

Although this principal claimed that instructional decisions

should be left to the teachers' discretion, the data indicate

that, at times, she had attempted to exert influence on teachers'

instructional decisions as well. This was evident in her concern

over teachers' interpretation of the Class Meeting format. At a

20

20

faculty meeting, the principal expressed concern over using Class

Meetings for disciplinary purposes, although this was promoted in

the training. In Case One, the district operated in a fashion that

may have encouraged and enabled the principal to exert greater

influence on teachers' decisions than in Case Two.

In Case Two, curricular determinations, i.e., adoptions and

scope and sequence, were made district-wide by a district-wide

committee. Representatives were appointed from each building to

serve on curriculum committees. Under the guidance of these

representatives, implementation was then the responsibility of

individual teachers. Because curricular decisions were made

district-wide, opportunity for the principal to influence the

process lies primarily through the building representative. For

example, the recent science adoption, which was opposed by at

least one teacher, was made by a district committee, as was the

handwriting adoption. In addition, this principal believed that

the teachers should have discretion over instructional decisions.

Therefore, she was choosing not to become involved, or exert

influence, in the area of instructional decision making--although

one of her goals was cooperative learning which is an

instructional strategy. Additionally, the teachers' negotiated

agreement provided for funding of two department head assignments

in each school. This arrangement delegated some instructional

leadership responsibility to teachers rather than to the

principal. In this district, there appeared to be less

21

21

opportunity and support for principals to exert influence on

curricular issues.

The similarities and differences across the cases may

suggest that different contextual factors support or constrain

principal influence and that not all mediating factors mediate the

same amount or in the same way. In these particular cases, the

greatest distinctions appear to be the student population and the

operation of the district. This suggests that the setting,

indeed, may condition the flow of influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this study was intended to be a cumulative, case

analysis of principal influence, the shift in approach, to a

cross-case, comparative analysis, proved every bit as fruitful in

its ability to generate insights about the phenomenon of interest.

While the conclusions of the study are limited by the sparseness

of related literature, the exploratory nature of the study, the

small number of cases, and the conceptual framework and

methodology selected for the study, the findings provide grounds

for three major conclusions. These conclusions are introduced,

briefly illustrated, then discussed in terms of related research.

Web of Factors

First, given comparable, and relevant, resources, principal

influence on teachers' curricular and instructional decisions may

be contingent on a web of five, inter-related factors. As the

previous section illustrates principal influence on teachers'

curricular and instructional decisions may be contingent on: 1)

22

22

the clarity of goals, and the capacity to communicate them and

connect them to action; 2) awareness of resources; 3) motivation

to deploy resources to promote identified goals; 4) skill with

which to employ and combine strategies to promote identified

goals; and 5) a setting conducive to principal influence. In the

case of high principal influence all five factors were present and

perceived to be important. In the case of low principal influence

these factors were absent.

While the framework suggests that goals, resources,

motivations, strategies, and setting are key, this study further

refines these general understandings by suggesting what it is

about these categories that may be important in detecting

principal influence on teachers' decisions. The two cases taken

together suggest that clear goals help to focus resources and

strategies, awareness of resources increases the potential for

influence, being motivated to employ multiple strategies to

prbmote specific aims can be powerful, and a district that allows

decision making discretion at the building may, in combination

with the other factors, account for principal influence, or lack

of influence.

Because the literature on principal influence is so thin, and

survey oriented rather than case study based, it is not clear

whether or not these refinements to the categories of the

framework add to the understandings of principal influence.

Generally speaking, surveys do not get at all of the categories,

nor at the dynamics of principal-teacher interactions. And, the

23

23

scant amount of literature provides no way to "check" the

refinements of these categories. Additional studies to test out

these refinements are needed. Additional studies should not

simply examine the general categories, but should go one step

beyond and look at the features of each category. Until then, the

question remains open as to whether or not these more refined

factors extend the current body of knowledge on principal

influence.

Conditional, Reciprocal Phenomenon

Second, principal influence on teachers' curricular and

instructional decisions is not automatic nor uniform, but rather

is a conditional phenomenon, and may involve reciprocal influence.

These cases demonstrate that principal influence is not

automatic because in one case principal influence was apparent and

in the second case principal influence was far less apparent.

Within each case, the influence that was depicted was conditioned

by a number of factors. Although there appears to be a set of

factors that may account for this difference in the degree of

principal influence, it is not apparent which case might be the

anomaly.

Reciprocal influence was evident in that in one case,

although the principal exhibited influence, she often aligned her

strategies to teachers' goals and interests. Their goals and

interests, and sometimes indications of resistance, influenced her

decisions regarding her own goals, how resources in her possession

were used, and strategies she chose to employ. In the second

24

24

case, the principal appeared to be influenced by teachers and

influenced little, if at all, herself. Although she had goals of

her own, resources were deployed and strategies were employed in

support of teachers' aims and interests. In both cases,

principals' actions were mediated and moderated by teachers'

actions, which reflects the reciprocal nature of principal

influence.

The literature on the principal as an instructional leader

and teachers as decision makers may not be so paradoxical after

all. Rather it may reflect the division in reality or reflect the

conditional nature of principal influence (i.e., there may be

influence sometimes and not other times). It may be that the

literature on principals as instructional leaders oversimplifies

the complexities of influence (i.e., admonitions for principals to

be instructional leaders, as well as a reputation for doing so,

does not mean that a principal will be influential in teachers'

decision making). Another factor to consider might be the

fragmented nature of the principalship. The job of the principal

is described by Blumberg (1987) as "highly fragmented" where the

principal has little time to devote to any one issue. Therefore,

perhaps some principals purposely attempt to influence teachers'

decisions and others do not depending upon what other demands are

in competition. Furthermore, this literature fails to recognize

that influence is not easily attained.

The literature on teacher decision making may have the same

problem. By failing to mention the principal, the literature

25

25

implies that principals do not exert influence on teachers'

decisions. In reality, it may mean that the issue has not been

addressed or that the complex nature of principal influence makes

it difficult to ascertain. The phenomenon of interest may be more

complicated, hence, influence is more conditional. In short, the

"resolution" of the riddle may be the conditional nature of

influence, rather than a "paradoxical" puzzle in the literature.

The findings from this cross-case, comparative analysis are

generally consistent with the broader set of literature on how one

can exert influence in organizations. Dahl (1984) suggests that

although influence can be unilateral, it is most often mutual, or

reciprocal. In both cases, although the degree of principal

influence varied, this was true. In one case, the principal

aligned strategies with teachers' aims and interests, and made

accommodations and adaptations in response to resistance. In the

second case, the principal operated primarily based on teachers'

aims and interests, and often made accommodations and adaptations

when faced with resistance.

Relatedly, influence may be subtle and indirect (Bollman &

Deal, 1991). The research on teacher decision making suggests

that there are many influences on teachers' decisions (Clark,

1986; Cohen, McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Hawthorne, 1992;

McCutcheon, 1982; Yinger, 1982), none of which are the principal.

However, these cases illustrate that the principal influences, or

can influence, the factors that teachers claim influence them.

For example, teachers claim that such factors as resources and

26

26

materials, time, school organization, knowledge and experience,

and students influence their decis

influence over all of these factors.

for second hand or indirect influen

principals exerted direct,

ions. Principals exert

This indicates a potential

ce. In both cases, the

observable influence and subtle,

indirect influence. One principal observed at specific times in

classrooms to exert pressure and support to promote math. This

was a direct and observable approach. On the other hand, she

lifted controls from reading expenditures in hopes that teachers

would examine, and expand, their reading practices--an indirect,

more subtle approach. The principal in the other case utilized

observation post-conferences to exert direct influence. On the

other hand, she carefully selected certain teachers to invite to

attend workshops, which was an indirect, subtle action.

The cases suggest, then, that both streams of literature

oversimplify the influence process. The literature on the

principal as an instructional leader presents numerous

admonitions, neglecting to address the complexities of influence

and to acknowledge that multiple forces shape teacher decision

making--many of which the principal can manipulate subtly and

indirectly. The literature on teacher decision making seems to

ignore the principal, most particularly how the principal can

indirectly, or directly, and subtly affect factors that influence

teachers.

There are other potential explanations for why principal

influence is not acknowledged in the literature on teacher

27

27

decision making. For example, because autonomy for teachers is

expected and accepted, it may be that teachers are reluctant to

give credit to principals for influence. Hawthorne (1992) points

out that school organization contributes to noninterference of

administrators. Further, teachers are insulated by the isolated

structure of schools. The school organization appears to

encourage teacher autonomy over curriculum. Teachers tend to

prefer autonomy, which may impact the potential for principal

influence as well as teachers' willingness to attribute influence

to the principal.

In summary, the mixed findings of this study--one case of

high influence and one case of low influence--suggest that

principal influence is oversimplified in the literature.

Furthermore, it is a conditional, reciprocal phenomenon.

Valid and Valuable Framework

Third, the political perspective and power-influence

framework are basically valid and valuable tools for exploring

principal-teacher interactions.

This study applied a political perspective, introduced by

Allison (1971), elaborated by Mazzoni's (1976) power-influence

framework, and adapted to principal-teacher interactions by Blase

(1991). The findings suggest that a political perspective and,

more specifically, Mazzoni's power-influence framework are

basically valid and valuable tools for examining principal-teacher

dynamics and understanding the politics of principal influence, or

lack of influence.

28

28

The perspective and framework were a valid approach because

much of what was acquired from the open-ended questions posed to

informants conformed to the categories of the framework. Through

the interview process, informants provided information about

principal and teacher goals, principal resources, the motivation

and skill of the principal to deploy resources, and the context

within which they work. In fact, the questions were open-ended

enough to catch both evidence of high influence and evidence of

low influence. The differences between the two were brought into

focus by applying the assumptions of a political perspective, and

examining and comparing each of the components outlined in the

framework.

There is always risk in finding what one is seeking, and this

model provided what the researcher was looking for, a case of

influence, but not what the researcher expected, a second case of

less apparent, subtle influence. Much of what was found, both in

the case of high influence and the case of low influence, fit the

precepts of the model, so it "fits", albeit in unexpected ways,

with the growing body of literature that a political perspective

is a valid way to get at principal-teacher relationships (Blase

1991).

This model was a valuable approach in that it corrected the

reputational data criteria utilized in the study and unearthed

some of the dynamics of principal-teacher interactions. The two

sites for this study were selected based on the reputation of the

principals as strong, instructional leaders. A reputation as a

28

29

strong, instructional leader proved to be an unreliable indicator

of principal influence. In one case, the principal did exert

considerable influence on teachers' decisions. In the other case,

however, the principal exhibited much less apparent influence on

teachers' decisions. The questions, derived from the framework,

elicited information from informants that cast doubt on the

assumption that principals with a reputation as strong

instructional leaders necessarily exert influence on teachers'

curricular and instructional decisions. The framework provided a

"check" on the criteria utilized to select sites where principal

influence was expected to be present.

The questions derived from the framework also secured

detailed depictions of principal-teacher interactions that could

be used to ground judgments regarding the degree of influence and

the dynamics of it. The elaboration of the dynamics of principal-

teacher interactions provided insight into how principals can, and

do, exert influence through the use of resources and strategies,

as well as insights into why principals may not be particularly

influential.

This perspective was an effective tool for getting at

principal-teacher interactions that are not addressed by the

literature on the principal as an instructional leader nor by the

literature on teacher decision making. This study suggests that a

political perspective can help address that gap and extend other

work (notably that by Blase) by getting at factors that may help

30

30

account for influence or lack of influence, hence, helping to

understand the phenomenon of study.

The findings from the perspective employed are generally

consistent with related literature. Empirical studies indicate

that by attending to the general categories of the framework, one

may uncover and interpret actor influence on decisions in

organizations (Malen, 1993; Mazzoni, 1992). The extent of

influence may be gauged by thick description of the dynamics of

the actors. Throughout the effective schools literature, it is

suggested that effective principals must be strong instructional

leaders. The research does not, however, offer any direction on

how a principal might become a strong instructional leader, nor

how a strong instructional leader might behave. Therefore, a

common understanding of "instructional leadership" is lacking,

which may account for the unreliability of reputation as an

indicator. The ability of this framework to elicit descriptions

of principal-teacher dynamics is supported by this study and its

application is fruitful. This is important because other streams

of literature do not provide a suitable way to get at the dynamics

of the interactions. So, this perspective is a basically useful

addition to the literature on principal-teacher interactions.

Validity and value ought not be over-stated, however, as

there was some reticence on the part of informants to respond to

questions regarding resources and strategies for influencing.

This may go back to the notion that politics, power, and influence

are often considered "pejorative" terms. So, future studies may

31

31

want to temper the language by using terminology that conforms to

the culture of schools, to more readily tap the perceptions of

informants. These issues notwithstanding, this perspective and

conceptual framework seem to get at the key features of principal

influence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This exploratory case study proved to be a serviceable

approach to examining such a complex phenomenon as principal

influence given the limited amount of related literature. As is

the case with exploratory research, this study has created more

questions than answers. Limited study has been conducted in the

area of principal influence on teachers' curricular and

instructional decisions, and the two streams of research

(principal influence and teacher decision making) are usually

treated as separate issues. This study has pointed out a need to

bring the two streams of research together and to test the

identified web of factors by further research of various types.

Additional case studies would allow one to determine if the

more refined factors, "discovered" in this exploratory case, are

useful in examining principal influence. Case studies over a

longer period of time may provide a more dependable picture of

principal-teacher interactions, as might case studies conducted at

a different time in the annual cycle of the school year. A

stronger case study design than the one used here would include a

broader, as well as larger, population. Both elementary and

32

32

secondary sites would be considered. This expansion would allow

for further testing of the identified factors.

A different approach, and perhaps a more robust design, might

be a series of ethnographies. This topic of study meets Yin's

(1984) criteria for conducting either a case study or ethnographic

study. Because the reputation of the principal is not a

dependable indicator of principal influence, an ethnography, like

the study used here, would provide a way to get underneath that

global assessment. In addition, it would enhance the case study

approach with the ability to get at the more subtle forms of

influence over longer periods of time. Case Two suggests that

such research is needed because influence may be too subtle to

pick up through interviews. Extensive and intensive observation

may help to get at the more subtle forms of influence. Because

the case study relies on recollection rather than observation, at

one snapshot of time rather than over time, it may not get at the

more subtle sides of power and more cyclical uses of it like an

ethnography could since one is inside the school for a longer

period of time. Actual observations may give a different view of

what is happening. The subtleties of the interactions may be more

apparent through observations than through interviews. In other

words, an ethnography allows for a check between what is reported

and described by the informants and what is observed by the

researcher.

Although open-ended surveys can be helpful, generally

speaking a broad survey does not get at the intricacies of

-33

33

principal-teacher interactions. However, after more case studies

and ethnographies have been conducted, a more refined survey could

be developed. Then one could augment a case study or ethnography

with survey data from more direct questions about various

strategies. Or, a more carefully construed survey, based on

findings from additional studies, might get at the conditional

nature of principal influence. Questions may need to be adjusted

to use more palatable language, i.e., language with a more

positive connotation so informants offer information about the

phenomenon of study more freely.

In sum, there is a need for more empirical research in the

area of principal influence and how it might impact teacher

decision making. As Blase and Kirby (1992) discovered, when the

question regarding principal influence is asked, informants do

give answers. This study suggests that the question should be

asked more often. The literature on the principal as an

instructional leader implies that the principal should, and could,

influence teachers' curricular and instructional decisions. This

study suggests that under certain conditions principals may,

indeed, be able to influence teachers' decisions in the critical

domain of curriculum and instruction.

REFERENCES

Achilles, C. M. (1987). A Vision of Better Schools. In W.Greenfield (Ed.),A(Eds.), Instructional Leadership: Concepts.Issues, and Controversies (pp. 17-37). Newton: Allyn and Bacon.

Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of Decision: Exolainina the CubanMissile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

34

34

Blase, J. (1991). The Micropolitical Perspective. In J. Blase(Ed.),A(Eds.), The Politics of Life in Schools: Power. Conflict.and Cooperation (pp. 1-18). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (1992a). Brinaina Out the Best inTeachers: What Effective Principals Do. Newbury Park: CorwinPress, Inc.

Blase, J., & Kirby, P. C. (1992b). The Power of Praise AStrategy for Effective Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 7(548), 69-77.

Blumberg, A. (1987). The Work of Principals: A Touch of Craft. InW. Greenfield (Ed.),A(Eds.), Instructional Leadership: Concepts.Issues. and Controversies (pp. 38-55). Newton: Allyn and Bacon,Inc.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing Organizations. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. V. (1982). TheInstructional Management Role of the Principal. EducationalAdministration Ouarterlv, 1E(3), 34-64.

Campbell, R. F., & Mazzoni, T. L. J. (1976). State Policy Makinafor the Public Schools. Berkeley: McCutchan PublishingCorporation.

Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' ThoughtProcesses. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),A(Eds.), Handbook of Researchon Teaching (pp. 255-314). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (Ed.).A(Eds.).(1993). Teachina for Understandina: Challenaes for Policy andPractice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dahl, R. A. (1984). Modern Political Analysis (Fourth ed.).Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Deal, T. E. (1987). Effective School Principals: Counselors,Engineers, Pawnbrokers, Poets. . .or Instructional Leaders? In W.Greenfield (Ed.),A(Eds.), Instructional Leadership: Concepts,Issues. and Controversies (pp. 230-245). Newton: Allyn andBacon, Inc.

Gamson, W. A. (1968). Power and Discontent. Homewood: TheDorsey Press.

35

35

Geary, S. (1989). The Policvmakina Process Resulting in Fiscal,Policy for Special Education in the State of Utah. Dissertation,University of Utah.

Greenfield, W. (1987). Moral Imagination and InterpersonalCompetence: Antecedents to Instructional Leadership. In W.Greenfield (Ed.),A(Eds.), Instructional Leadership: Concepts,Issues. and Controversies (pp. 56-73). Newton: Allyn and Bacon.

Hawthorne, R. K. (1992). Curriculum in the Making: Teacher Choiceand the Classroom Experience. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of Educational Organizations.Educational Management and Administration, 12(2).

Kanter, R. M. (1972). Two Traditions of Political Analysis.Sociological Inquiry, la, 77-92.

Kleine-Kracht, S. P. (1993). Indirect Instructional Leadership: AnAdministrator's Choice. Educational Administration Ouarter1v,2(2), 187-212.

Larsen, M. L. (1995). The Elementary Principal's Influence onTeachers' Curricular and Instructional Decisions. Dissertation,University of Washington.

Malen, B. (1993). "Professionalizing" Teaching by ExpandingTeachers' Roles. In S. L. Jacobson & R. Berne (Ed.),A(Eds.),Reforming Education: The Emerging Systemic Approach (pp. 43-65).Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press, Inc.

Malen, B. with McLeese, P. (1993). Policy and PoliticalInfluences. In S. D. Thompson (Ed.),A(Eds.), Principals for ourChanging Schools (pp. 20-36). Fairfax: The National Policy Boardfor Educational Administration.

Malen, B. e. a. (1993). Policy and Political Influences. In S. D.Thomson (Ed.),A(Eds.), Principals for our Changing Schools (pp. 1

36) .

Mazzoni, T. L. (1992). A Framework for Political (power-influence)Analysis. Unpublished manuscript cited in Malen, B. e. a. (1993).Policy and Political Influence. In S. D. Thomson (Ed.),A(Eds.),Principals for our Changing Schools (pp. 1-36). University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

38

36

McCutcheon, G. (1982). How Do Elementary School Teachers Plan?The Nature of Planning and Influences on It. In W. Doyle & T. L.Good (Ed.),A(Eds.), Focus on Teaching (pp. 4-23). Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshfield: PitmanPublishing Inc.

Yin, R. (1984a). Designing Single- and Multiple-Case Studies. InCase Study Research: Desian and Methods, (pp. 27-41). BeverlyHills: Sage Publications.

Yin, R. (1984b). Introduction. In Case Study Research: Desian andMethods (pp. 13-26). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Yinger, R. J. (1982). A Study of Teacher Planning. In W. Doyle &T. L. Good (Ed.),A(Eds.), Focus on Teaching (pp. 239-259).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ep moment of EducationOffic of Educational R search and Improvement (OEA!)

Educational resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE

L DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:

(Specific Document)

EA- .o.a.2.-/e3

Tits:The Elementary School Principal's Influence on Teachers' Curricular andInstructional Decisions

Author(s): Marci L. Larsen and Betty Malen

Corporate Source: I Publication Date:

REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community. documents announcedin the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy. and olectronicloptical mode, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of-each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission Is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.

tCheck here

For Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4° x 6° film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)and paper copy.

Signhers-4pie Sr

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to ell Level I documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

\e

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 1

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to Elli Level 2 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS

MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

\eccR

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Level 2

Document will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level I.

Check hereFor Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4° x 6° film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.

1 hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated abovm Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electrordc/opticalmedb by persons other thenERIC employees and its system contractors requirat permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for nonprofitreproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.°

gnaturc: -

`7;1 ve)dienmelt oZmo:

1962 Hoover Avenue S.E.

Port Orchard, Washington 98366

mom oe:

Marci L. Larsen, Director of LearningTechnology., South Kitsu_School Distri

Teiepharts:

360-376-5992 360-376-7681

Ivan afire Unto:Iskmarcil orca.esdI114.wednet.edu 5/27/97